Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the First Office action on the Merits from the examiner in charge of this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: (i) claim 1, line 22, “shall be shall be” should be “shall be”; (ii) claim 7, line 2, “the top and bottom deck” should be “the top and bottom decks”; (iii) claim 8, lines 1-2, “the additional adjusting means are” should be “the additional adjusting means is”; (iv) claim 10, line 4, “top and bottom deck” should be “top and bottom decks”; (v) claim 11, respective lines 3, 4 and 5, “snap-fit coupling” should be “snap-fit coupling means”; (vi) claim 16, line 3, “snap-fit coupling” should be “snap-fit coupling means”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The following is some examples of claimed language, terms or clauses which fail to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention: (i) claim 1, lines 4-5, “wherein said plurality of legs are at least one upper part of leg, as well as a plurality of crossed and simple ribs”; (ii) claim 1, lines 8-9, “wherein said plurality of legs are at least one lower part of leg (2'), as well as a plurality of crossed ribs, a plurality of simple ribs and a plurality of fork entries”; (iii) claim 2: since claim 1, lines 14-15 recites the joining members integrally formed in the top deck”, the recitation in claim 2, lines 1-2 of “wherein the joining member are integrally formed with the top deck” is improper in context, thus renders the claim indefinite; (iv) claim 3, “and/or shanks, or any suitable piece” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, thus renders the claim indefinite; (v) claim 5: since claim 1 appears to define the top deck includes an upper part of a leg, and the bottom deck includes a lower part of a leg, the recitation in claim 5 of “the legs may be entirely formed in the top deck or the bottom deck, or any known combination” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, thus renders the claim indefinite; (vi) claim 6: since claim 1 clearly defines the joining members are integrally formed in the top deck and the holes are disposed in the bottom deck, the recitation in claim 6 fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "upper" deck in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "each snap-fit member" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, lines 4-5 of “down the snap-fit coupling” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 12, line 2, the limitations “from 2 to “n” quantity” should be a plurality”;
Claim 13 recites the limitation "preformed rivet pins" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14, lines 2-3, “is selected from an infrared…or any other” is improper Markush.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "snap-fit connection" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16, line 4, the bars system can be “disposed over/above the snap-for coupling” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, thus renders the claim indefinite for failing to clearly define what would consider to be over/above.
Claims 2-16 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 1.
The claims are replete with clarity issues. Above provides non-limiting examples such that the applicant must find all similar issues and correct them all. For the purpose of this examination, all claims will be examined as best understood or so far as definite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-15, as best understood or so far as definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP 7779764 to Naidu et al (hereinafter Naidu) in view of US 2008/0066657 to Kuo.
Naidu discloses (Claim 1). A plastic pallet 10 comprising: a top deck (15), which is in turn formed by an upper face, a lower face, a left side face, a right- side face, a front face, and a rear face, wherein the lower face includes a plurality of legs (14) integrally formed thereof, and wherein said plurality of legs are at least one upper part of leg (14), as well as a plurality of crossed and simple ribs; a bottom deck (12), which is in turn formed by an upper face, a lower face, a left side face, a right-side face, a front face and a rear face, wherein the upper face includes a plurality of legs integrally formed thereof, and wherein said plurality of legs are at least one lower part of leg (14), as well as a plurality of crossed ribs, a plurality of simple ribs and a plurality of fork entries; wherein joining or coupling means between the lower face of the top deck (15) with the upper face of the bottom deck (12), occur when the lower part of leg (14) of the bottom deck (12) overlap with the upper part of leg (14) of each leg of the plurality of legs, forming a plurality of spaced apart, entirely formed, legs (14) corresponding to each leg of the plurality of legs; when said top (15) and bottom (12) decks are overlapped, a plurality of joining members (23) integrally formed in the top deck (15) legs pass through a corresponding plurality of holes (43) disposed in the bottom deck (12) legs; once the plurality of joining members (23) passes through the corresponding plurality of holes, the joining members comprise a distal end portion or pin head protruding from the lower portion of the holes, the joining members (23) exactly match in number and array with the holes (43) in the lower part of the leg (14); the joining members (23) having such a length that after the top deck and bottom deck are fully coupled, the distal end portion or pin head protrudes from the corresponding opposite portion (such as shown in Fig. 7), thus, said pin head shall be heated to form a dome, plate, disk, semi- sphere, and related shapes and carrying out a hot riveting process (heat staking process) of the pin head; (Claim 2). The plastic pallet according to claim 1, wherein the joining members are integrally formed with the top deck (15), and the material of which said joining members (23) are made of is deformable by heat (heat staking process) or has adequate properties to allow the transformation throw heat deformation of the distal end portion of each joining members (23); (Claim 3). The plastic pallet according to claim 2, wherein the joining members (23) are pre-formed pins, rods, stakes and/or shanks, or any suitable piece; (Claim 4). The plastic pallet according to claim 1, wherein the crossed ribs in the top deck do not necessarily coincide or match with said crossed ribs of the bottom deck; (Claim 5). The plastic pallet according to claim 1, wherein the legs may be entirely formed in any known combination; (Claim 7). The plastic pallet according to claim 1, wherein the joining members are made of the same material as the top and bottom deck of the pallet; (Claim 9). The plastic pallet according to claim 1, wherein the legs comprise a rib array having an internal structure formed by (such as shown in Fig. 5) an exterior perimeter 44, an internal perimeter and a plurality of walls 45 connecting said exterior perimeter with the interior perimeter; (Claim 12). The plastic pallet according to claim 1, wherein the pallet comprises from 2 to "n" quantity of preformed rivet pins (23), disposed in the legs (14) of the pallet; the plurality of preformed rivet pins (23) may be disposed in the legs (14) on any kind of arrangement or array not limited to an equidistant distributed array; (Claim 15). The plastic pallet according to claim 7, wherein the material comprises HDPE or polypropylene.
The differences being that Naidu fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (i) claim 1 of wherein the plastic pallet further comprises additional adjusting means; (ii) claim 6; (iii) claims 8 and 10; (iv) claims 13 and 14.
Regarding (i) and (iii), Kuo discloses a plastic pallet comprising a top deck 12, a bottom deck 11; when said top (12) and bottom (11) decks are overlapped, a plurality of joining members (3) in the top deck (12) pass through a corresponding plurality of holes (117) disposed in the bottom deck (11); once the plurality of joining members (3) passes through the corresponding plurality of holes, the joining members comprise a distal end portion or pin head protruding from the lower portion of the holes, the joining members (3) exactly match in number and array with the holes (117) in the lower part of the bottom deck; the joining members (3) having such a length that after the top deck and bottom deck are fully coupled, the distal end portion or pin head protrudes from the corresponding opposite portion (such as shown in Fig. 5); wherein the plastic pallet further comprises additional adjusting means (2); wherein the additional adjusting means are snap-fit connections disposed respectively in each leg of the pallet; wherein along with the joining members, said snap-fit connection enhances the rigidity and stability of the attachment of both top (12) and bottom (11) decks; each snap-fit connection comprising a head (221-224) for engaging a corresponding snap-fit member aperture (212) formed in the bottom deck (11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of Kuo, to modify Naidu to include the limitations in (i) claim 1 of wherein the plastic pallet further comprises additional adjusting means; (iii) claim 8 of wherein the additional adjusting means are snap-fit connections disposed respectively in each leg of the pallet; wherein along with the rivet formed by the hot riveting process, said snap-fit connection enhances the rigidity and stability of the attachment of both top and bottom decks; each snap-fit member comprising a head for engaging a corresponding snap-fit member aperture formed in the bottom deck; claim 10 of wherein the legs further comprise the additional adjustment means, which match and interact one to each other; the legs comprise both jack and socket (or a kind of male and female connector) of a snap-fit coupling means, and both jack and socket hatch one to each other, preventing any kind of displacement between top and bottom deck with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the plastic pallet.
Regarding (ii) claim 6, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art to modify Naidu, as modified, to include the limitations in claim 6 of wherein the plurality of joining members can be formed in the bottom deck and the plurality of holes in the top deck, or in an alternate arrangement, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding (iv) claims 13 and 14, since Naidu, as modified, discloses all the structural limitations in the claims, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art to modify Naidu, as modified, to perform the method steps recited in claims 13 and 14.
Claim(s) 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naidu, as modified, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0367215 to D’Emidio et al (hereinafter D’Emidio).
Naidu, as modified, discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations recited in claims 11 and 16.
However, D’Emidio discloses a plastic pallet comprising: a top deck, a bottom deck, snap-fit connections (217,201-205), an improved reinforcement metallic bars system formed by a plurality of bars (100) disposed in the vicinity, below and above the snap-fit connections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of D’Emidio, to modify Naidu, as modified, to include the limitations in claim 11 of wherein the pallet comprises an improved reinforcement metallic bars system, formed by a plurality of bars disposed next to the snap-fit coupling means; and wherein the improved reinforcement metallic bars system can be disposed in the vicinity of said snap-fit coupling means or down the snap-fit coupling means; Claim 16 of wherein the pallet comprises an improved reinforcement metallic bars system, formed by a plurality of bars disposed next to the snap-fit coupling means, and wherein the snap-fit connection is in an upper location configuration and the improved reinforcement metallic bars system can be disposed over/above the snap-fit coupling with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the plastic pallet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and all show structures similar to various elements of applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH VAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DANIEL TROY can be reached at (571)270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HVT
October 31, 2025
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637